Is abortion ever justified?

[Des]

In any case, I believe that what she did was justified,and justifiable. If she did not have that abortion, she would not be alive today to have had those twins. She gave up the one…and wound up with two.

That’s poor reasoning. It’s like saying “If this woman’s husband wasn’t murdered, she would not have met her next husband and the children from that marriage wouldn’t exist today.”

The point I’m making is does this current info justify the murder? Never! It’s just the consequences of sinful or non sinful actions continuing to roll along as nature intended.
However, God can of course bring about good from these sins.

Example: The children from this second marriage grow up to be excellent pro life advocates for their Country.

 

[Des]

She’s Orthodox Jewish. She does not believe in Jesus Christ. She does not believe that Jesus even existed. She has her own beliefs, and it is not for us to TELL her how or what to believe.

Abortion has nothing to do with a belief based on ‘faith’. Atheists can even comprehend the logic of a pro life argument based on science and reasoning. It’s why we are not ‘Pressing’ our religion on anyone when we defend life.

 

[wanner47]

“Miracles” are things which one does not ordinarily expect to happen.

Further, you wrote:
<<<<<It’s also not true about Catholic teaching not applying to her.>>>>>

Let’s clarify something that you seem to be missing here:
She’s Orthodox Jewish. She does not believe in Jesus Christ. She does not believe that Jesus even existed. She has her own beliefs, and it is not for us to TELL her how or what to believe.

The Roman Catholic Church is not empowered to establish beliefs for people of every religion in the world. I’m sure the Hindus would take great offense to Rome’s forcing of their teachings onto Hindu practitioners. Christians would probably feel just as offended if the Hindus tried to do likewise to us!

Each religion has the responsibility for teaching it own tenets to its adherents. No church, mosque, religion, synagogue, or Tepee has any business telling the others that their teachings are wrong. When they start doing that, when they start crossing over that line, then they start to lose credibility insofar as being a “teaching authority” is concerned.

You know, God did not create “religion”, per se. God did give us a set of laws to observe, and historically, when man has crossed over that line, things have not gone well for mankind. “Religion” was created by man, and that is one of it’s inherent problems. Men will disagree with other men, and before long, holy wars break out, often over nothing more than tribal god-like images. No wonder the Commandment said “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images”.

Anyway, that’s enough typing for today. Have a nice day.

Do you realize that your beliefs on this matter are in direct conflict with Catholic teaching?

The CCC:

**1956 **The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties

More here. And here is a good article by Jimmy Akin on the subject.

Also, this law applies to your Jewish friend as well:

Thou shalt not kill.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

You wrote the following:
<<<<<Also, this law applies to your Jewish friend as well:
Thou shalt not kill.>>>>>

First, let me advise you that there is no Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. Shocked to see that? Then let me explain.

The Ten Commandments were handed down to Moses, as you know. The fifth of these, CORRECTLY TRANSLATED from Hebrew into English, is as follows:
“Thou shalt not MURDER” (emphasis added)
So you might wonder “what’s the difference”? Clearly, there is a huge difference. Read on…
Soldiers fire various weapons at opposing forces on a field of battle. That’s not murder. It’s war, and it’s also self-defense.
A car hits a patch of black ice, and skids out of control, striking and killing a pedestrian. Once again, that’s not murder.
You decide to go out and end the life of “John Doe” tomorrow morning, and then carry out your plan…THAT’S murder! The difference? Murder is done “with malice aforethought”, and in no way can be attributed as “self-defense”.
It is amazing to see all the changes of translations that have been sprung on the rest of the world whenever someone comes along and attempts to translate Hebrew into English.

I’m sorry to tell you this, but that is only one of many incorrect translations that have been worked into the bible by people who want to re-write the Bible. But, consider this…

The Ten Commandments were not written in English, French, German, Italian, or any other language. They were written in Hebrew, the language of the Children of Israel. Furthermore, all prophecies were in Hebrew, too. A mis-translation of even a single word changes what was originally written, and I’ve got problems with that. For instance…
There are many people who think there is a Messianic prophecy “the virgin shall be with child”. Sorry, but that is also incorrect. There are two Hebrew words in play here. “Alma” and “Betulah” have entirely different meanings. One translates from Hebrew to English as “Virgin” while the other translates as “Young woman”. The word used by Isaiah is the one that translates as “young woman”. In other words, there is no prophecy of a virgin birth.
As much as I respect the Papacy, I will not agree with anyone who decides to re-translate the Torah. The Torah (Five Books of Moses) was around for over 3500 years before the coming of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus Himself would have studied from those books, and prayed from those Scriptures. He would have undergone the ritual of Bar Mitzvah, as did all Jewish boys in those ancient times (and as I did, in fact, in 1962).

Just one little question here, to see if you are “up” on this:
“Who was the first Christian?”

Have a nice day.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Do you realize that your beliefs on this matter are in direct conflict with Catholic teaching?

The CCC:

Quote:
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties

---

Very nice. But from the looks of it, it seems as if the Church is trying to claim universal control, covering everything under the sun. They have that right insofar as Roman Catholics are concerned. They do not have that right of authority over anyone who is not an adherent to our Church.
One thing: Prior to converting from Judaism in 1978, I never read the CCC, nor did I take any courses of formal instruction prior to both Baptism and Comfirmation.
Maybe that was rare for those days, and I’m sure it was. However, I’m sure Father Carvelli knew what he was doing (Baptism), and the same can be said for Father Dufour (Confirmation).

 

[Des]

wanner47;5236846:

Very nice. But from the looks of it, it seems as if the Church is trying to claim universal control, covering everything under the sun. They have that right insofar as Roman Catholics are concerned. They do not have that right of authority over anyone who is not an adherent to our Church.

The Church has the ‘Right’ to teach the Truth to all of mankind no matter who wants to listen or not.

Do you not believe in the natural moral law where an innocent person should not be killed by another for something he/she did not do?

Regarding your ‘virgin’ translation. From what I’ve read, in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, ‘parthenos’ not the more generic Greek word for young woman. Makes one wonder why they did this.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

PastGrandKnight;5237086:

The Church has the ‘Right’ to teach the Truth to all of mankind no matter who wants to listen or not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:
But they cannot force, nor can they expect, people of other religious beliefs to automatically fall into line if it is in violation of THEIR religious teachings.

             ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you not believe in the natural moral law where an innocent person should not be killed by another for something he/she did not do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:
Of course I believe it, and accept it as a “given”. I also believe that everyone is entitled to his or her own beliefs, and it’s not my place to force my beliefs on someone of a different belief system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And from what I’ve read,

Regarding your ‘virgin’ translation. From what I’ve read, in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, ‘parthenos’ not the more generic Greek word for young woman. Makes one wonder why they did this.

                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply:
As I’ve said more than once, I’m concerned with translation from Hebrew to English. All too often, when translating form onelanguage to another, and then to a third and even a fourth language, errors creep in.
The only translation I can accept is one that starts with the Hebrew and is translated into English (since I do not read Greek!).

                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now it’s time to head off to bed and get some sleep before leaving for work.

 

[Des]

PastGrandKnight:

But they cannot force, nor can they expect, people of other religious beliefs to automatically fall into line if it is in violation of THEIR religious teachings.

I never said they had to and would be sinning if they didn’t. I simply say that truth is truth and should be preached at all times. Killing an innocent human being isn’t based upon a certain faith but is wrong according to mankind’s moral code written in his heart. You can see this through all sorts of cultures and periods throughout times.
An obese lady who kills her unborn child is never justified to do so and I can state this whether I’m Catholic or not*.*

PastGrandKnight:

Of course I believe it, and accept it as a “given”. I also believe that everyone is entitled to his or her own beliefs, and it’s not my place to force my beliefs on someone of a different belief system.

It is our place to defend basic justice that is not based upon the faith of what a certain religion teaches. Abortion falls under this ‘basic justice’ category.

PastGrandKnight:

As I’ve said more than once, I’m concerned with translation from Hebrew to English. All too often, when translating form one language to another, and then to a third and even a fourth language, errors creep in.
The only translation I can accept is one that starts with the Hebrew and is translated into English (since I do not read Greek!).

That is your prerogative. However, we do know it was a prophesy concerning Jesus and Mary and we do know Mary was a Virgin when she Conceived Christ. ‘Almah’ has been used in other verses to describe young unmarried women before. So young woman in this context meant a "young marriageable virgin woman’. I actually think it has been translated perfectly without having to research into it too much to find the proper understanding of what this verse was actually getting at.

 

[Des]

On a side note, I’d really wish people could begin by quoting someone else’s post properly instead of answering within a quote. It really messes up the replies as first off, they are non existent when you hit the reply button. Lots of time being wasted just trying to correct my own replies because of improperly quoting and now that I see my other replies quotes are messed up as well because of this, that bothers me too. It looks like I was quoting two people in one of my posts.

I also feel this forum takes away the editing privileges much too quickly. At least leave it in there for awhile longer than the 10 or so minutes they give us.

 

[wanner47]

So let me get this straight, PGK. You don’t believe the Church has any authority to teach. You don’t believe Mary was a virgin. And you don’t believe abortion is murder, or that “Thou shalt not kill” (or thou shalt not murder, however you want to translate it) applies to a mother wanting to kill her unborn child.

Have you discussed these beliefs with a priest?

 

[ceciliatherese]

That’s poor reasoning. It’s like saying “If this woman’s husband wasn’t murdered, she would not have met her next husband and the children from that marriage wouldn’t exist today.”

The point I’m making is does this current info justify the murder? Never! It’s just the consequences of sinful or non sinful actions continuing to roll along as nature intended.
However, God can of course bring about good from these sins.

Example: The children from this second marriage grow up to be excellent pro life advocates for their Country.

The mother and the unborn baby have equal rights. Which means, in the event of the baby threatening the mother’s life, the mother can kill it in self-defense to save herself, as would be the case with every person.

 

[c659smith]

The mother and the unborn baby have equal rights. Which means, in the event of the baby threatening the mother’s life, the mother can kill it in self-defense to save herself, as would be the case with every person.

And how does the baby defend itself?

Does the baby get to ask the doctor for a second opinion, does the baby get to ask for a chance to go through the point of viability, Does the baby get his or her day in court?

I think the baby does and that is when the mother who killed her child will have to justify her actions to God.

 

[Des]

The mother and the unborn baby have equal rights. Which means, in the event of the baby threatening the mother’s life, the mother can kill it in self-defense to save herself, as would be the case with every person.

Don’t be foolish. The baby isn’t attacking anything so that defense method won’t fly.

I’m getting tired of seeing pro abortion supporters representing Catholics. You should place the term ‘Cafeteria’ next to the Catholic name there.

 

[PastGrandKnight]

You wrote:
<<<<<That is your prerogative. However, we do know it was a prophesy concerning Jesus and Mary and we do know Mary was a Virgin when she Conceived Christ. ‘Almah’ has been used in other verses to describe young unmarried women before. So young woman in this context meant a "young marriageable virgin woman’. I actually think it has been translated perfectly without having to research into it too much to find the proper understanding of what this verse was actually getting at.>>>>>

With all due respect, who are you to say something has been “translated perfectly”, when it is my guess that do not even know the Hebrew language? Only a scholar in the Hebrew language can say if something is “translated perfectly”, or not.
Admittedly, I am not a scholar of the language, either, which is why I went to an Orthodox Rabbi who is a scholar, and asked him for the correct translation of various Old Testament verses. (My own formal education in the Hebrew language consisted of one year at the Lubavitch Yeshiva in Boston, a very long time ago). Some of them were as I thought they would be, but this was one of those was different (this one, plus the Fifth Commandment being the other major one).
The Rabbi and I talked at length about the different translations, and he cautioned me about mis-translations and the problems that are inherent in such things.
Perhaps that’s the beauty of the method they use to make new Torah Scrolls. But then again, I’m sure you’re not overly interested in such a thing, so I’ll just leave it at that. The process is awesome, though, and serves to maintain the Torah today just as it was in the time of Jesus…and for 3500 years before Him.

 

[Disciple96]

The mother and the unborn baby have equal rights. Which means, in the event of the baby threatening the mother’s life, the mother can kill it in self-defense to save herself, as would be the case with every person.

The baby has no ability to defend himself or herself. She or he also can present no direct intentional deliberate threat. We are justified in wounding or killing someone who is trying to kill us. Actually trying to kill us. You know, gun in hand, knife in hand, bomb in hand, speeding car speeding at us with steering wheel in assailant’s hand. What baby can do that?

I think you are equating “rights” with “power” and no baby has power equal to a grown human being who is determined to kill that baby. This country used to stand for the defense of those who were being threatened by stronger parties. Now we want to be the ones people need to be protected from. That’s progress, I guess. Oy.

 

[Disciple96]

With all due respect, who are you to say something has been “translated perfectly”, when it is my guess that do not even know the Hebrew language? Only a scholar in the Hebrew language can say if something is “translated perfectly”, or not.
Admittedly, I am not a scholar of the language, either, which is why I went to an Orthodox Rabbi who is a scholar, and asked him for the correct translation of various Old Testament verses. (My own formal education in the Hebrew language consisted of one year at the Lubavitch Yeshiva in Boston, a very long time ago). Some of them were as I thought they would be, but this was one of those was different (this one, plus the Fifth Commandment being the other major one).
The Rabbi and I talked at length about the different translations, and he cautioned me about mis-translations and the problems that are inherent in such things.
Perhaps that’s the beauty of the method they use to make new Torah Scrolls. But then again, I’m sure you’re not overly interested in such a thing, so I’ll just leave it at that. The process is awesome, though, and serves to maintain the Torah today just as it was in the time of Jesus…and for 3500 years before Him.

And from another reply:
Very nice. But from the looks of it, it seems as if the Church is trying to claim universal control, covering everything under the sun. They have that right insofar as Roman Catholics are concerned. They do not have that right of authority over anyone who is not an adherent to our Church.

Hey, PGM. You know, the Church from the beginning has emphasized the Greek bible, not the Hebrew bible. The Hebrew canon as it now exists wasn’t even around then. The scriptures, yes; the canon, no. Scholars do go back and compare the Hebrew and the Greek now, but we still take the scriptures that were used by the apostles and Christ Himself as being special, you know. That’s what they were quoting from when they quoted. And we don’t even need to get into things that apparently happened when the Hebrew canon was determined. Let’s just say, the Jewish leaders were none too pleased with those wacky Christians who were causing so much trouble back in Jerusalem and elsewhere and I think that our religions went down different paths as maybe our scriptures did too as a result of that.

Now as to authority, I’m sensing that you might still be a little ticklish about that aspect of Catholicism. But everything about the Church flows from Who her Founder was and what He said and what He did, and one of those things He did was: He gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter and instituted His Kingdom, making Peter the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. And Prime Ministers have authority. Christ established an office that continues in the Kingdom to this day. Every teaching and every sacrament and every everything in the Church flows from this and if you miss this point, you will miss every single point that follows.

As Catholics we are not told to believe something because we can’t think for ourselves. But we are told about the Truth and we should want to accept that Truth. And that Truth is Christ. What part of the world does Christ have no business poking His Divine Nose into, eh? He created the Universe and I reckon He knows what’s what and He has chosen to give us His Church to teach us about it. His choice, not ours. It is ultimately His authority you question when you question His Church and His teaching which she safeguards and hands on down through the ages.

Before I converted, I took a Catechism course and I’ve been studying it ever since. I would never dream of converting to a religion without finding out everything I could about it. (I studied Buddhism for quite a while before I went down that path.) How could I honestly say that I’ve embraced a teaching that I haven’t even looked into? I couldn’t. I’m still studying Catholicism and it’s been 15 years now. I’m still learning and I look to the Church to teach me. Who else? Who better?

 

[ceciliatherese]

Don’t be foolish. The baby isn’t attacking anything so that defense method won’t fly.

I’m getting tired of seeing pro abortion supporters representing Catholics. You should place the term ‘Cafeteria’ next to the Catholic name there.

I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make the assumption that I was a pro-abort, especially as you hardly know me or what my views are. I’m getting quite tired of people who judge others repeatedly, representing Catholics.

I’m not being foolish at all. The baby isn’t directly attacking the mother, but it is, intentionally or not, killing her. if a person, intentionally or not, is killing another person, then that person can, if he or she has no other choice, kill that person in self-defense. Would you rather the mother let the baby kill her, resulting in both a dead baby and a dead mother?

 

[Des]

With all due respect, who are you to say something has been “translated perfectly”,

But who are you to say it isn’t?

And actually I’m not the one stating this like some sola scriptura believer. We know this verse was used by the Apostle to describe Jesus birth correct. The Dogmas of the Church states Mary was Ever Virgin. Logically, that passage meant that a young unwed virgin woman would conceive.

 

[Des]

I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make the assumption that I was a pro-abort, especially as you hardly know me or what my views are. I’m getting quite tired of people who judge others repeatedly, representing Catholics.

I’m not being foolish at all. The baby isn’t directly attacking the mother, but it is, intentionally or not, killing her. if a person, intentionally or not, is killing another person, then that person can, if he or she has no other choice, kill that person in self-defense. Would you rather the mother let the baby kill her, resulting in both a dead baby and a dead mother?

The baby through the natural means of conception has just as much right to be there as the mother. You are ‘For Abortion’ (direct intent to kill an unborn human being) under certain conditions or circumstances. Every pro abortion advocate has their own reasons and stage when a fetus should be killed. Someone who says they should have abortions before the first trimester is another example and I would still call them pro abortion advocates.

 

[ceciliatherese]

The baby through the natural means of conception has just as much right to be there as the mother. You are ‘For Abortion’ (direct intent to kill an unborn human being) under certain conditions or circumstances. Every pro abortion advocate has their own reasons and stage when a fetus should be killed. Someone who says they should have abortions before the first trimester is another example and I would still call them pro abortion advocates.

Yes, the mother and the child both have an absolute right to life. Therefore, if one is threatening the life of the other, that person can justly defend itself, namely, the mother, just as in any other circumstance where the person, intentionally or not, is endangering the life of another person.
Well, you can call me a pro-abortion advocate if you want, what the hell. That doesn’t change the fact that I’m not. I’m simply for the equal right to life of both mother and baby.